Comments for George Plays With Maplehttps://maplegeorge.wordpress.com
'To boldly plot what no man has plotted before'Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:14:37 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/Comment on I wanna love you, but I better not touch by George G.https://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/i-wanna-love-you-but-i-better-not-touch/#comment-26
Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:14:37 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=501#comment-26Thanks!

Stay in touch – I’ll post something funny again in about BusyBeaver(10) days.

]]>Comment on I wanna love you, but I better not touch by christopherolahhttps://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/i-wanna-love-you-but-i-better-not-touch/#comment-25
Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:08:20 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=501#comment-25> Here’s a rather more clear formulation of the same solution: don’t just use prisoners to find the bottle – use the subsets of prisoners. The set of 10 prisoners has 1024 subsets, more than enough. Assign each bottle to some subset.

That’s such an extremely elegant way to explain why this works. I like it a lot 🙂

]]>Comment on by christopherolahhttps://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/495/#comment-24
Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:41:46 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=495#comment-24… I’ve got to ask, are you making some sort of statement with the lack of titles? It rather confuses my RSS reader.
]]>Comment on by George G.https://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/495/#comment-23
Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:16:30 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=495#comment-23I knew it existed, but I’ve never bothered to listen to it until now. (I am a non-constructivist, you see.)
]]>Comment on by christopherolahhttps://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/495/#comment-22
Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:10:09 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=495#comment-22I assume you’re aware of the finite simple groups of order 2 song?

]]>Comment on by christopherolahhttps://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/431/#comment-21
Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:05:57 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=431#comment-21Neat! I made it into a 3D model:http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:10472

]]>Comment on Cubed once again by George G.https://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/cubed-once-again/#comment-19
Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:00:28 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=319#comment-19Ah, I think I see it now! It’s nice, because it allows us to avoid using the formula for the derivative of the inverse function.
]]>Comment on Cubed once again by christopherolahhttps://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/cubed-once-again/#comment-18
Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:15:47 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=319#comment-18Thanks for merging my comments!

>I am a geometric derivatives skeptic.

I know. I got quite a bit of amusement out of resolving this using them, just because of that.

> I think that everything that can be proven using them can be proven without them without complicating the proof much.

It’s a matter of elegance. Perhaps it will be more clear in my solution to

> Also, I don’t quite understand why is approximately .

Actually, I’m going to step back in the proof a bit because I can make things a bit neater.

To prove , let’s solve for in .

Well, consider . We expand to our first term in the geometric approximation: . Some simple algebraic manipulation results in .

All this is a formalization of the fact that a high geometric derivative of a function means that the difference between and is in some sense small. So if it becomes bigger and bigger, they go to the same point (in terms of the value of x that would be needed to achieve the same result…).

The reason I like this a lot more than your approach is that it is conceptually smaller. It’s a result of the basic idea of the geometric derivative,

]]>Comment on by George G.https://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/341/#comment-17
Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:45:26 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=341#comment-17Ah, now this is nice. Not going to try and verify it though.

(Also note that I responded to you on the “Cubed” entry.)

]]>Comment on by christopherolahhttps://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/341/#comment-16
Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:35:04 +0000http://maplegeorge.wordpress.com/?p=341#comment-16Someone had some fun and made a really self referential formula… http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/math-self-reference/index.html
]]>